Do I? Please explain how KK is not "a made-up system". Please explain how UC is not "a made-up system". Please explain how UCR is not "a made-up system". Please explain how SWF/M is not "a made-up system". Please explain how SWF/T is not "a made-up system". I believe it's fair to say that they are all "made-up systems", as human beings (with different opinions, prejudices, and talents) devised them all.

gokyreloaded said:

Accordingly, I publish in an orthography which amends those errors and inconsistencies

who approved the amendments?

We did. Those of us who have participated in the Spellyans discussion. But of course you knew that.

"Outside of official contexts, Cornish users are of course free to write in any orthography they choose. In recognition of this and in anticipation of emendations to the Standard Written Form at a future stage of the Partnership process, we believe that discussion of corrections and improvements to the Standard Written Form should begin without delay. In the interim, we would like to offer the public an adapted version of the Standard Written Form for immediate use. We do not ourselves believe that recognized inconsistencies and errors should be taught, if they can be identified and put right."

why should schools believe your system is superior,? than the officially approved system.

Schools don't "believe" anything. People do. I don't know what people will do. I do know that we have identified problems in the SWF. I do know there are fixes to those problems. I do know that we don't believe that the problems should be left un-fixed.

Just because something was "officially-approved" at the end of a dysfunctional and highly-politicized negotiation process does not mean that it is flawless, or that it is fair, or that it is linguistically superior to a system which endeavours to improve on what came out of the process. In fact, I know that KS is a more accurate and a less ambiguous system than the SWF-as-approved. We make no complaint about the CLP's decision to use the SWF-as-approved unchanged for 5 years. We are also under no obligation to use a system with faults ourselves. KS is also more accurate and less ambiguous than UC and UCR. It is, in my view, better than them, as it is better than the SWF-as-approved. I say this on linguistic grounds, and no amount of jeering from you since the publication of Alys in Pow an Anethow has disproved a word of what I have said about the linguistics of the SWF compared with KS.

I don't believe that you have really done any homework about this. Your main goal appears to be to sit there and rant about us. That's not very interesting.

In which case there is nothing to choose between them other that how effective they are, and how popular they are.[/quote]There is the question of how well they meet identified requirement criteria.

Does this mean we will hear no more of your "KK is a conlang" cant?

I don't follow you. KK is an artefact. That doesn't mean it respects Cornish. It seems to respect George's vision of Brythonic reconstruction more than it respects genuine Cornish. As such, it has features redolent of a conlang.

Mike said:
A book for children should have been published in the official education form of the language, SWF/M, in the first place

I have no time for the SWF/M, because it uses graphs which are not based on attested traditional orthographic forms. (As has been pointed out previously, the "chauvinism" which places SWF/M "above" SWF/T was a cynical part of the AHG process. During the process, the choice of M-type graphs and T-type graphs was left free to the user's preference. But when it became clear that Vocalic Alternation needed to be a formal part of the orthography, the KK representatives insisted that this would only be acceptable if the M-type graphs were given primacy.

That's not good-faith negotiation based on linguistic facts. That was a cynical ploy designed to make the SWF look (in some contexts) more like KK than like UC/UCR/RLC. Entirely superficial, and entirely intended to put those who prefer traditional orthography at a disadvantage.

then this scenario would have been avoided.

What scenario? Do you really prefer the "scenario" in which everyone pretends that the SWF has no linguistic flaws? Do you really believe that excellence should be put off for five years?

Evertype said:
You should give credit to the author when you cite his poem. That was written by Bert Liston Taylor, American journalist and humourist, ca. 1920.

It's long since passed into folklore. You do seem to be a very possessive person, your obsession with copyright etc. Where there is no financial gain to be had, I can only assume you must be some kind of control freak. Although looking around the internet it does appear that you have something of a reputation for jumping on people who for example provide fixes for errors in you work. Clearly co-operation is not something you understand. So who's the dinosaur now?

In which case there is nothing to choose between them other that how effective they are, and how popular they are.[/quote]There is the question of how well they meet identified requirement criteria.[/quote]

Identified by whom? Agreed by whom? All you're doing is avoiding the question.

[quote]Does this mean we will hear no more of your "KK is a conlang" cant?

I don't follow you. KK is an artefact. That doesn't mean it respects Cornish. It seems to respect George's vision of Brythonic reconstruction more than it respects genuine Cornish. As such, it has features redolent of a conlang.[/quote]

I think that is disingeneous. First you admit that all systems are constructed, then you single out one as 'artificial' (a synonym for 'constructed') because you don't like the particular way it was done. Well, we don't like the way your systems are constructed, mostly without any objective criteria as far as I can see. So again, in the absense of any independent outside judge or criteria there is nothing to choose between systems apart from practical effectiveness and popularity. We might expect these to run together, since people generally prefer things that work to things that don't but this is an emperical question.